Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by the Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

Really? I was under the impression the Flak round (Pzgr) was never fired by the Tiger I E given that the Pzgr round would require reworking (fuse & possibly more) in order for it to fire from the KwK 36 weapon.

I also have a German photo of a captured JS-2 that differs from the armor scheme drawings.

About that:
100-119 mm measured & the much vaunted "120 mm™" seems a bit much for variation of cast plate, perhaps the summer builds of the JS-2 (stepped hull with modified turret/optic) were slightly up armored compared to the initial series? Then again the armor plates on these vehicles are not a uniform thickness but rather appear to vary quite curiously all throughout the plate :
It is possible the KV-85 might vary similarly making armor thickness difficult to determine.

Really? I was under the impression the Flak round (Pzgr) was never fired by the Tiger I E given that the Pzgr round would require reworking (fuse & possibly more) in order for it to fire from the KwK 36 weapon.

It’s not the fuse. It’s the cartridge primer. However,
they used inlaid primers to fire percussion primed FLAK ammunition from electrically actuated kwk36. Some schw.Abt. In early 1943 reported to have used only Flak ammo.It was widely practiced.

It’s not the fuse. It’s the cartridge primer. However,
they used inlaid primers to fire percussion primed FLAK ammunition from electrically actuated kwk36. Some schw.Abt. In early 1943 reported to have used only Flak ammo.It was widely practiced.

Interesting, I would like to see some sources for this if possible.

Last edited by Contender on 19 Mar 2020 22:32, edited 1 time in total.

There were very few Tigers around in early 1943. One source says there were only 1800 Pzgr39 8,8 cm made in 1942. In 1943, over 100K were made, along with rare Pzgr 40 (5600), and even HL (22,400). 8000 Spgr were made in '42, and over 135K made in 43.

The Tiger 'fleet' was never that great. Runners were even less. I will review 'Tigers in the Mud', (502) but from memory, ammunition did not seem to be a problem. By Kursk, the ammunition usage that Miles posted breaks out the Tiger and FlaK ammo separately.

The whole report is too much to post. Its a compilation of summeries noted during the discussion of ordnance chiefs in regard to various trials, field experiences, planned (and abandoned) developments of Ammunition (compare attachment). Of course, it´s a primary source.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

'Hat Nur' can be translated as 'has only'. It could be that they have to use FlaK ammunition due to a shortage of KWK ammunition. I would not infer 'exclusiveness' from that. But, it certainly proves that they did use FlaK ammo in some form. 'Is the date somewhere? The /43 on the left?

It mentions 'protection against flames by installing sheet metal'? But says that they then had 'good experience with this'? Did flames shoot out from the breech when opened????

The next blurb mentions 8,8 cm Spgr knocking off T34 turrets? Is this possibly related to the one above??

It mentions 'protection against flames by installing sheet metal'? But says that they then had 'good experience with this'? Did flames shoot out from the breech when opened????

'Tiger Tank: A British View page 138-139 mention the firing trials. They state they used flak ammo and that backflash was considerable on 3 of 4 rounds. They also believe the deflector guard fitted on the commanders side was there to protect him from the backflash.

There is no date to the file and the other summaries are not sorted in a comprehensible form. However, its from 1943 as indicated by the /43 suffix.
For whats worth, one may infer from the form that it responded to a question how ammo performed, as it stated to have had good experiences with Flak ammo. The emphasized

nur

on the other hand tells me that the initial question was not related to Flak ammo but KwK ammo, which at that point was also distributed for the first time (8.8cm pzgr.39 appearing in quantity). Apparently, schw. Abt. 502 had not used KwK ammo until this memo was returned, explaining the from of the response. If that is assumed to be a believable hypothesis, it would point towards an early time in 1943, perhaps march or april.

The next blurb mentions 8,8 cm Spgr knocking off T34 turrets? Is this possibly related to the one above??

no, it doesnt refer to the one above, its a different memo. Engl. Mk. II is very probably the Mathilda II, judging by 1943 editions of the Panzer Beschusstafel. Both, early T34 and Mathilda exhibited cast turrets, and I know of other memos, which were critical about the resistence of armor castings. This might help to explain why german tank designs preferred RHA welded turrets and used cast armor only for non-structural members, such as mantlets. Personally, I tend to believe that this is not a proof of inferiority of armor castings but highlights the difficulties experienced in the early wartime to make good armor castings. The T34 used 8S steel for turret castings, which are terribly ineffective because this steel was made for RHA and had poor cast properties. I don´t know enough about the Mathilda-II to form an opinion.

MK´s infromation comes in support to what this source states. Backflash when firing Flak ammunition seems to have been a recognized issue.

The whole report is too much to post. Its a compilation of summeries noted during the discussion of ordnance chiefs in regard to various trials, field experiences, planned (and abandoned) developments of Ammunition (compare attachment). Of course, it´s a primary source.

For whats worth, one may infer from the form that it responded to a question how ammo performed, as it stated to have had good experiences with Flak ammo.

IIRC Pzgr is a thinner walled larger HE cavity round therefore if the round penetrates a target the after penetration effects should be quite spectacular, better than the improved rounds Pzgr 39 (-1) and in 1943 the Pzgr round should penetrate most soviet armor quite effectively. So perhaps there might be a reason to keep a more destructive round in use other than due to shortages?

IIRC Pzgr is a thinner walled larger HE cavity round therefore if the round penetrates a target the after penetration effects should be quite spectacular, better than the improved rounds Pzgr 39 (-1) and in 1943 the Pzgr round should penetrate most soviet armor quite effectively. So perhaps there might be a reason to keep a more destructive round in use other than due to shortages?

I base my statement on the fact, that the technology and knowledge required to mass production of their new Pzgr39 ammunition in 7.5cm and larger calibre only evolved in autumn 1942. That´s when the report was written and circulated by WaPrüf to other manufacturers (BAMA RH8-1319). It takes time to retool manufacturers, then to produce ammunition lots, test, proof and re-proof enough of them that the Feldzugamt builds up a sufficiently large stock of 75mm & 88mm Pzgr39 ammunition, which then also needs to be deployed to field units. Thus, for larger calibre (5cm Pzgr39 was developed somwhat earlier already), there cannot have been very many Pzgr39 around in early 1943. I suppose it became standart somewhen in spring 1943.